CS846 Paper Review Form - Winter 2012 Reviewer: Philip Mitchell Paper Title: The “ Physics ” of Notations : Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering Author(s): Daniel L. Moody 1) Is the paper technically correct? [X] Yes [ ] Mostly (minor flaws, but mostly solid) [ ] No 2) Originality [X] Very good (very novel, trailblazing work) [ ] Good [ ] Marginal (very incremental) [ ] Poor (little or nothing that is new) 3) Technical Depth [X] Very good (comparable to best conference papers) [ ] Good (comparable to typical conference papers) [ ] Marginal depth [ ] Little or no depth 4) Impact/Significance [X] Very significant [ ] Significant [ ] Marginal significance. [ ] Little or no significance. 5) Presentation [ ] Very well written [X] Generally well written [ ] Readable [ ] Needs considerable work [ ] Unacceptably bad 6) Overall Rating [X] Strong accept (award quality) [ ] Accept (high quality - would argue for acceptance) [ ] Weak Accept (borderline, but lean towards acceptance) [ ] Weak Reject (not sure why this paper was published) 7) Summary of the paper's main contribution and rationale for your recommendation. (1-2 paragraphs) Daniel Moody presents a very well-motivated set of principles with which to judge the effectiveness of visual modelling notations in software engineering. He clearly states what a good design should be able to achieve (high cognitive effectivness). He then then explains a great deal of theory from other domains that focus on effectiveness of visual image processing, especially compared to textual processing. Using this theory, he develops a set of principles that a visual modelling notation must follow in order to be considered good. When presenting all of these ideas, he uses existing notations such as UML, Entity Relationship, and ArchiMate to demonstrate how these languages follow or violate the principle being presented. Moody fairly admits that his focus is on ability to decode (interpret) the diagrams, and that he does not consider the ability to encode (craete) them. While the paper is generally very well written, and the vast majority of statements are proven with very detailed analysis and reference to evidence from other fields, the paper tends to be repetitive. Some of the proof may be considered obvious. What results is a paper with somewhat less information in it than one would expect a paper of this length. Moody draws close attention to many terms throughout the paper, such as "Not Invented Here effect" and then never refers to them again. This is somewhat surprising to see in a paper that focuses on effectiveness of communication and cognitive manageability. In contrast, the Gregor and Jones taxonomy is referred to several times through the paper (as only Gregor's taxonomy), but is not fully explained until the conclusion. 8) List 1-3 strengths of the paper. (1-2 sentences each, identified as S1, S2, S3.) S1 - The principles are presented with very clear evidence from outside the software engineering domain. S2 - The principles are into context by showing where existing technologies are ineffective. S3 - Moody provides a solid framework that can be used to develop a much better visual notation for software engineering purposes. 9) List 1-3 weaknesses of the paper (1-2 sentences each, identified as W1, W2, W3.) W1 - Excessive terminology is introduced, much of which is only mentioned once in the paper. W2 - Gregor's taxonomy is referenced throughout the paper, but not explained until the conclusion. W3 - Very long, and some sections are repetitive with detailed proof and explanation that would have followed naturally from previous information.